TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 245
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ITAT erred in law and on merits in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. The respondent assessees had claimed deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. They had also filed a copy of Form No.3CB and 3CD and Form No.10CCB in support. In the regular assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer collected details from M/s. Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd and M/s. Rites Ltd. and came to the conclusion that HCIL ARSSPL TRIVENI (JV) had not executed the work but had given sub-contract to M/s. HCIL. Respondent assessee M/s. HCIL Kalindee ARSSPL similarly had not done any work but sub-contracted the work to M/s HCIL and M/s Kalindee Rail Nirman Project Ltd. 4. The aforesaid factual position was put to the respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see cannot be held liable for concealment penalty u/s 271 (i) (c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not been able to establish that the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 801A of the Act was not bona fide. A mere rejection of the claim of the assessee by relying on difference interpretations does not amount to concealment of the particulars of income of furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof by the assessee. Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT V. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322, after considering various decisions including Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519/161 Taxman 218 (SC) and Union of India V. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277/174 Taxman 571 (SC) concluded that a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Vs. ITO, 124 ITD 353(Del.). Moreover, mere fact that the report prepared by the CA in the form 10 CCB was not in accordance with the provisions of section 801A(7) of the Act, was not enought to hold that the mistake was not bona fide. This view is supported by the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Deep Tools Pvt. Ltd., 274 ITR 603 (P&H), where in also levy of penalty was held to be unjustified. In CIT Vs. Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd., 298 ITR 524 (Mad) Hon''ble High Court while adjudicating the levy of penalty in relation to incorrect claim for deduction u/s 80 HHC & 801 of the Act held in the light of aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dilip N. Shroff (supra) that a mere rejection of the claim of the assessee by relying on d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In terms of the explanation quoted above, we have to examine whether the case falls within sub-clause (A) or (B) and the effect thereof. Sub-clause (A) applies when the assessee fails to furnish any explanation or when an explanation is found to be false. In the present case, sub-clause (A) would not be applicable as assessee has furnished an explanation, and the explanation has not been found to be "factually" false. The assessee had made a wrong claim for deduction under Section 80IA and, therefore, had furnished inaccurate particulars as the claim was not admissible. Sub-clause (B) of the explanation is, therefore, applicable and we have to examine the two conditions whether: (1) The assessee has been able to show that the explanation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven by the Assessing Officer why the claim for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act was rejected and should be denied. The first reason was that the respondent assessees were involved in works contracts and Explanation to Section 80IA (13) stipulates that benefit under the said Section was/is not available to a contractor carrying on works contract. The said "clarificatory" explanation was inserted by the Finance Act, 2007 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2000. The CIT (Appeals) in the first appellate order has specifically mentioned that the Finance Act, 2007 received the Presidential assent on 11.05.2007 [(2007) 291 ITR (St.) 1]. The returns of income were filed by M/s. HCIL Kalindee ARSSPL (JV) and M/s. HCIL ARSSPL Triveni (JV) on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imposed because the assessee has taken a particular stand or had preferred an interpretation which was plausible and reasonable, but has not been accepted, unless the assessee had not disclosed facts before the authorities. Such cases have to be distinguished from cases where the claim of the assessee is farcical or farfetched. Dubious and fanciful claims under the garb of interpretation, are a mere pretence and not bonafide. 13. It is not the case of the respondent assessee that there were conflicting decisions of High Court or there was a recent decision of the Supreme Court which had escaped attention or was not understood or an appeal or review etc. was pending before the Supreme Court. The explanation added was clear and categorical....